Agnostic.com

30 3

So it's ok now for me to refuse to make a Christian wedding cake because it's against my strong non-religious beliefs?

InLogicWeTrust 6 June 4
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

30 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

7

Yes, and that's a good thing. Would you really be upset if a baker refused to make a cake for the KKK? How about if the Westboro Baptist Church ordered a cake that said "God hates fags". Would you condemn a decorator for refusing to write that? As someone who has made literally thousands of cakes and cupcakes, I think the ruling is fine. Privately owned businesses should be free to choose not to do something that offends them personally --- think, what if a TShirt shop was asked to make TShirts that said "Heil Hitler" ....would you allow them the right to refuse to screenprint such a shirt? If you want to open a bakery and refuse to put anything religious on any cake you decorate, that should be your right.

You make a very astute point here. Undoubtedly, like it or not, this is the same analytic thinking that the Court undertook. To have decided otherwise might have opened the door to much more egregious activities. Even though the ruling was quite limited in scope, it was nonetheless, I think, prescient.

Uh oh, we have someone making sense over here.

@indirect76 Right? It's cute to watch the Libtards have heart attacks over this.....gawd forbid we protect FREEDOM for business owners to make their own business decisions......

Did you read about the details of this case?

The cake shop owner simply refused to provide the cake because it was for a same sex wedding. It was not about the design of the cake.

[theguardian.com]

@Ellatynemouth That's NOT true. He offered them any pre-made, pre-decorated cake they wanted.

@SkotlandSkye

He turned them down because they gay. They were not asking for an obscene design. They were asking for the same thing straight couples ask for.

This cake maker was not complaining about the design.

You care about animals but you condone homophobia. I am astounded.

@Ellatynemouth You have no idea to whom you are speaking. I was one of the activists and Lobbyist who got "don't ask, don't tell" done away with. I used to be the director of a LGBT non-profit association AND I am one of the founding members of the LGBT Marriage Alliance. I spent $12K going to Seminary in 1993 to become an ordained minister JUST to marry LGBT people and Pagan & Atheist people. The photo attached is me doing a Lesbian wedding in 1996. Think about that. Anyhow, what you are forgetting is that we have FREEDOM in this country -- and I also wore a uniform once to defend that freedom. The case in question, the baker very much said they could have any pre-decorated cake. He has that RIGHT. I amy not like it, but I will wear a uniform again if necessary to defend that right...Just as I will defend someone's right to burn a flag or a tattoo artist refusing to do a tattoo of Hitler. You can't force someone to do something that goes against their beliefs whether you agree with them or not. This is about Freedom...which I SUPPORT FULLY even if I disagree. Your assumption that I agree with the man's opinion is nothing but trying to incite an argument.

@SkotlandSkye

I disagree.

We are talking about 'services' offered to the public. A shop on the High Street. An open door.

Crucial word here - PUBLIC.

If his business was not open to the public, then all well and good. He would have the right to pick and choose.

The public however, is made up of lots of different types of people - gays, blacks, Jews, whites, Christians, atheists, lesbians, trans etc

There are already businesses such as florists, guesthouses and other cake shops that have made the headlines for denying services to gay people.

This is unacceptable. And if faith based businesses are allowed to discriminate then it opens the floodgates to further types of discrimination. Would Muslims be turned away, or unmarried couples...?

The list goes on.

If you are still defending this man then at least agree he should display a sign in his shop window: 'We do not cater to same sex weddings'.

At least that way gay couples would be spared the embarrassment and humiliation of being turned away.

@Ellatynemouth So, a cake decorator is an artist. This man specifically crafts his cakes and handpaints most of them. He has the right and the freedom to choose what he wants to paint/design/create. This is what the court determined. Would you have the courts order a Muslim painter to paint a portrait of Allah if a client requested it? Would you order a Jewish T-Shirt designer to create a T-Shirt of Hitler? Or, would you order a Christian tattoo artist to do an atheist tattoo or a "God is Dead" tattoo just because someone is willing to for it and wants it? Similarly, would you order an Atheist tattoo artist to do a tattoo of Jeebus if they didn't want too? Listen, I don't have to agree with someone's religious convictions....but I do have to --- and always will ----defend their right to have those convictions. It's Constitutional Law.

6

It's against my religion as a healthcare provider to treat christians now

Somehow I feel that wouldn't go over

@LadyAlyxandrea I would love for you to try that and see what happens.

@kmdskit3 I would try but my moral compass christians say I don't have won't let me

@LadyAlyxandrea Perfect response!

Right, and now, thanks to the SJW regressive crowd, you canNOT so discriminate if you wish to - do you see how that's a TERRIBLE prededent?

6

I'd really love for someone to do that.
Just to test the theory and maybe instigate another court case.

5

I get the sarcasm, but I think you might actually be able to refuse to decorate a cake with, say, "Jesus Lives" or "Allahu Akbar" if you had another religion, or possibly strong non-religious convictions. That is what I infer from the SC ruling. But you couldn't refuse to sell someone a plain muffin. It's easy to think this ruling is just bigotry, plain and simple, but I think it's more complex than that.

I think that's the direction the court was leaning, but the majority opinion stopped short of setting out any such broad principles, and instead focused pretty narrowly on the specific facts and circumstances of this particular case.

Someone could refuse to provide cakes for First Communions, Confirmations, baptisms, bar mitzvahs, bat miztvahs, and a whole host of other religious ceremonies. Part of me wants to open a bakery just so I can refuse service to the theists.

4

All I could think of was that, ’they,’ are working out front and behind the curtain trying to make this a Christian Nation! ‘They,’ are supporting discrimination based on the Christian Religion. But, want this pertain to other religious beliefs and where this could end up is anyone’s guess, if other religions so choose?

I got it. Just think joining "them" is the issue. There is no them..All Christians do not think and behave the same. Just as all members here don't. I have heard the most racist comments by other white people because they mistakenly thought I was one of "them." I apologize if I am being too serious if you meant this as a joke

@gigihein I did not mean it as a joke, however my mind wondered into the weeds! I did not mean very Christian wants to make this a Christian Nation, but I have heard it so often said...a great many people are working toward making this country into a Christian Nation! One such person, would be Franklin Graham, who does have some clout...there are others, but they do not come to mind. Then there are personal observations back in Ga, where people are doing whatever thing they can, pushing for our country to be a Christian Nation.

@Freedompath I get it
I don't think it is a majority..i think it is partially the constant news of Trump supporters is so exaggerated it seems like it.i feel your pain.I just don't want to mirror what I dislike

3

So far this was a fairly limited decision; more about how the plaintiff was treated rather than the 'religious freedom' to discriminate. But these 5 idiots in the majority could really fuck things up if they make a broader ruling.

3

No no no that's persecution can't be having none of that !!

everyone would be yelling "war on (poor, poor) Christians !"

@evergreen exactly!!

2

What kind of idiot would refuse business? Usually one that won't be in business too long.

2

I believe the decision was deliberately made super narrow and deals primarily with the way the Colorado Civil Rights Commission behaved improperly. That limits the decision to this single case only. A broader decision will have to be made on another case.

2

A very slippery slope indeed. What if he will not serve black people? Would that be OK? Having said that if I had a cake shop and someone wanted a cake made into a huge penis and my daughter, wife or workers objected, I feel it would be within my rights to say no thank you for the business. The owner could have just said politely he was too busy.

2

Well, you could, but you'd probably go out of business pretty quick. :/

godef Level 7 June 4, 2018
2

Good question. Quite the test case. Is atheism/agnosticism a religion?

Technically no but it is considered one

Sometimes it appears to be a dogma here making those whose views differ being wrong. There are many places to buy cake.

1

Whether your "non-religious" beliefs are equivalent to religious beliefs is not certain.

Discriminating against someone based on their religion is treated as legally equivalent to discriminating against them based on their race. This is not new law.

This case is NOT as simple as "Christians win, gays lose." It's really important to understand why, and to understand that on the real question of when does a religious exception apply to an anti-discrimination law, the Supreme Court PUNTED today.

So all the odds are stacked in favour of theism.

That much is true. Well, "religion" is probably a better word than "theism" here, but I take your meaning. The First Amendment and statutory law both privilege in a variety of ways.

That I say this is true should not be understood as the same thing as saying that I like it.

1

any wedding cake should do. it is not necessarily christian to have a cake.

1

It appears so.

1

Yes!! Haha I bet the Christian crowd would be so mad about it to. Hypocrites. I am appalled at that vertict by the supreme court! If your a bigot and are not going to serve people based on your belief you don't need to have a business go be a preacher if thats how you act. Our country is out of control

1

I have a major problem with this whole affair.

Consider these:

No bathing suits

No shirt, no shoes, no service

We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone

No smoking permitted in this building

Smoking not permitted within 20 feet of entrance

No food or beverages allowed in theater

Whites only

One is for health reasons. One is because a certain smell might offend some people. One is based in money/greed. Two are forcing a dress code of sorts. One is based on general principles. One is clearly based in prejudice.

No wedding cakes for gay couples

What is the basis for that?

How many of these sound even slightly reasonable? One definitely and one is stretching, but is at least reasonable.

Okay. Maybe four of them fit into the reasonable slot.

So, I see a case for business owners saying it is their right to determine who they will and who they will not serve, but if that is allowed there is no telling where it would lead. Knowing people, it wouldn't be good.

Suppose I opened an atheist cafe and put up the following sign:

NO Christians, Muslims, Catholics, Mormons, Jainists, Hindus, Etc.

What would happen? Some might not be bothered by it at all. Others? I dunno.

Thank you. I agree.

1

Nope. That would immediately land you with a heavy fine or jail time. Anti-discrimination laws prohibit discrimination based on religion, but thanks to the SCOTUS, not sexual orientation...

1

It should be. I’m all for LGBT rights, but they should stop at forcing other people to do things.

Not serving a woman if her heads not covered, menstruating, had an abortion, uses birth control, etc. ? All of these examples could be used in the name of religious freedom. According to the bibble, not a typo, slavery could be justified and I'm sure there are plenty of peckerheads who would love to say their religion won't allow them to socialize or sell anything to non-european Americans. Also rape and stoning people to death over minor infractions could be justified with bibblical passages. Commerce is the public square or central to our country and if what you are advocating becomes a supreme court decision millions could be economically disenfranchised. Just like mormons are not allowed multiple wives the government can, does and should control the more public aspects of religious practices. Of course all this is ignoring whether the bibble, especially the new testament, actually condemns homosexuality.

LOL, that's not "for LGBT rights". See I can tell because after the comma it said "but they"...dumbass.

If you're straight and someone won't serve you then that's acceptable if their religion deems it because that's what just happened.

@kmdskit3 I don’t care if the reason is religious or not. People should be free to choose who they do business with.

You're obviously not all for LGBT rights at all.

@indirect76 That is not, cannot and should not be an absolute right which, according to what you've said, is what you're advocating.

@Gwendolyn2018 make cakes?

@Ellatynemouth I am, but that relies entirely on what you mean by rights.

@indirect76

Next time you're denied service in a shop, because you're straight, let me know.

@Gwendolyn2018 I didn’t make it sound anything like that. You interpreted it that way. I simply said that their rights should stop at forcing other people to do things. How did you make such a jump?

@Ellatynemouth If I were denied service for any reason, I would not give a single shit, and would certainly not try to force anyone to do anything about it.

@Gwendolyn2018 I’d say that’s all well & good except the handicapped example.

@Gwendolyn2018 Yes. If Walmart really wants to bar readheads, then by all means, let them. I’m sure it would be great for business.

The last sentence was sarcasm.

@RonHunt Well I’m glad you are certain that your opinion is right and mine is wrong. Congratulations!

@indirect76 I tend to agree. If they choose to small a segment they won't be in business for very long. It's really that easy. Also if word gets out that they are not selling or working with certain groups they will find themselves being boycotted. I'd tell friends why not to shop there.

@morlll I’m just not about forcing people to do things they don’t want to, it’s that simple.

1

I the eyes of the believer's I don't think so. I'm sure they would freak out and call it an affront to God.........

1

Not necessarily, but if your state demonstrates hostility to your irreligion in the course of ruling against you, that ruling will probably be overturned. Although there were plenty of other issues raised, the majority opinion by Justice Kennedy focused narrowly on the Colorado Civil Rights Commission's demonstrated hostility to religion during their hearings. Enforcement of the law should exhibit neither extreme deference nor hostility towards religion, but should strive toward neutrality.

1

Although, depending on where your business is, the backlash might be pretty big. If you had a shop in the South and did that, the inevitable boycott would probably ruin you.

0

The left is dead wrong on this issue. Freedom of association is a core American principle. This is a problem that the free market can (and does, and HAS) handled perfectly satisfactorily - just don't give your business to bigots when there is a substitute supplier - why would you? Why would you want to force a bigot to take your business? Makes no sense. UNLESS (huge important exception here) one's business is a "common carrier" or similar for which there is no reasonable substitute to use as a service or product supplier - e.g. utilities, public transportation and similar, or even in employment and housing - I can see banning such discrimination there, but not cake makers - there are dozens in every major big city - less government is always better if the free market is able to handle the issue without detrimental market externalities - there are no externalities here - in fact, not being able to force them to take your business is a good thing so they'll go out of business that much faster due to bad publicity coupled with the majority sentiment. This is a terrible precedent - do YOU want to be forced to provide a product or service to say, a MAGA-hat wearer if you choose not to serve them in your business? That's what this precedent does. Lefties are regressive on this issue (one of many examples) - you're not seeing the long-term / big picture.

0
0

You can. I would prefer to keep my own tone and live and let live.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:99097
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.